Self-Defense, Revisited
[Guest post by DRJ]
Recently I posted about a San Marcos, Texas, case where it was reported four teenagers attempted a home invasion and three of them were shot, two fatally. The police are apparently treating it as a clear case of self-defense even though it was later reported the home was the residence of a marijuana grower and drug dealer.
There is a similar case in Denver in which a homeowner who shot at but did not hit three robbers was nevertheless indicted and tried on criminal charges. However, in the Denver case, an innocent victim was killed — the homeowner’s 10-year-old daughter. The Denver Post filed a series of reports but here is my summary of the Denver facts:
A father and marijuana dealer — I’ll call him Dad — was apparently dealing drugs out of his home. The police claim and the girl’s mother (Dad’s wife) confirmed Dad used his daughter to deliver drugs.
Three robbers reportedly broke in to steal drugs and money. The father shot at them and his 10-year-old daughter was shot in the face and killed.
The police say Dad shot his daughter. The defense claims one of the robbers shot her. Apparently the investigation was inconclusive because it’s not clear who shot the daughter.
The police say the daughter was found with her hand on a baggie of marijuana in her pocket, suggesting she may have been delivering drugs. However, three people — the girl’s mother, a Denver police officer who was one of the first on the scene and a neighbor who helped give CPR — testified the girl’s hands were across her chest when she died and not in her pocket. Dad’s lawyer says the police planted marijuana on the girl.
Dad was indicted and tried for reckless child abuse in the death of his daughter. According to the Denver Post report, the jury did not “have to decide whether [Dad] was allowed to shoot at the robbers because under Colorado’s “Make My Day” law, he has a right to defend his home. The jury also does not have to decide whose bullet killed the girl.”
Dad was acquitted today.
As noted above, this is similar to the San Marcos story in which a homeowner and reported marijuana dealer shot teenagers who were reportedly trying to rob him. Like the Denver case, there was apparently a robbery in progress. Unlike the Denver case, it appears no innocent person was hurt in San Marcos. Most important, the potential criminal charges are significantly different since the Denver case focused on whether Dad was so reckless regarding his daughter’s safety that it could be considered child abuse.
Any thoughts?
— DRJ
That must have been a hellaciously poor investigation in Denver. Still, if there is evidence the guy was growing I won’t be surprised if his legal troubles aren’t over yet. The feds got a free chance to see the weak points in the case. They wouldn’t even have to bring up the robbery attempt.
Soronel Haetir (2b4c2b) — 9/14/2009 @ 8:48 pmOne article says he still faces drug and gun charges that carry significant jail time.
DRJ (a51a0e) — 9/14/2009 @ 8:54 pmHere’s my thought:
Either legalize marijuana or step up the enforcement of the current laws.
For a long time, I was opposed to legalization, and a large part of me still is opposed.
However, no child should be killed because of that stupid weed.
In my mind, I can guide my children away from foolish choices. They may disappoint me. I don’t know.
But,the individuals who continue to partake will be dealt with by market forces. Who wants a slacker, or a stinking drunk for that matter, on the job?
Legalize marijuana, but make sure that employers can still test for it and fire those who toke.
Ag80 (64bef0) — 9/14/2009 @ 9:04 pmIf he grew and sold marijuana in his home he was putting his daughter at risk. If he was using her in selling and delivery he is furthermore putting her at risk. Whether he shot her or the robbers shot her, his illegal activity in his home set up the scenario that lead to her death. That’s 3 counts of reckless endangerment and whatever else you can charge him for due to his employ of his daughter, including breaking child labor and minimum wage laws.
MD in Philly (d4f9fa) — 9/14/2009 @ 9:15 pmHe should sit in a cell in solitude, sober and drug free, with before and after pictures of his daughter on the wall, for a long time.
If distribution is a felony in Denver (or Colorado, or whichever appropriate jurisdiction), then he could feasibly be charged with felony murder, right? If the law states that any death that occurs as a result (or during the commission) of a felony counts as felony murder (and I’m not sure what the law states, exactly), and distribution (or conspiracy to distribute or whatever) counts as an ongoing felony, then he could be charged with that, right?
Isn’t marijuana decriminalized within the Denver city limits, though? How does that affect this whole thing? Wouldn’t distribution still be illegal even if possession was decriminalized?
Leviticus (30ac20) — 9/14/2009 @ 9:24 pmSecond amendment rights shouldn’t go away until a court of law has ruled. Let’s consider this. Leave out the marijuana charges – would this man, in general, have been lawfully able to defend an invasion of his home with deadly force? In the portions of the US that are still free the answer is obviously yes. And in that case, if the daughter was killed, obviously the murder charges should go on those who performed the felony robbery.
Now, let’s factor in the pot charges – how does this change things? Obviously the father can be charged with many drug charges, including reckless endangerment of his child – but murder? Nope. If justice prevails that murder will solely go onto the robbers, without whom the shooting would not have taken place.
Of course, this probably is incorrect as a matter of law, but law and justice are only very tangentially related at times.
Skip (9c227a) — 9/14/2009 @ 9:46 pmI vote with Skip, but the Dad should be put away for a long time, if for nothing else, Felony Stupidity.
AD - RtR/OS! (5c940e) — 9/14/2009 @ 9:56 pmInteresting to note that since medical marijuana clinics started doing business in the San Fernando Valley of LA there are presently more than 100 locations dispensing “legal” (don’t tell the feds) medical marijuana. Per LAPD, every clinic has been the subject of an armed robbery at least twice. The loss is always cash and large amounts of high grade marijuana.
Legalizing it is not the solution. Those calling for legalization fail to understand the culture surrounding drugs. The stoners often compare alcohol to weed yet how many liquor stores are being robbed for alcohol? None of course.
Stan Switek (d9d8ce) — 9/14/2009 @ 10:16 pmLeviticus, yes. Possession of under an once of pot is legal in Denver. The result of this stupid law is that instead of a municipal ticket worth $100, the offender is arrested booked, and charged under state law.
MaaddMaaxx (b91eb0) — 9/14/2009 @ 10:21 pmThe father probably should be charged with felony stupidity, but so should the cops. Denver cops are at least as crooked as any in the country short of New Orleans. Bar and Liquor store owners (on Colfax Ave, the main drag)are required to pay off the cops weekly to stay in business (second hand knowledge from owners). They routinely abuse rights and screw up investigations.
In 2003 a sergeant was hounded by charges of child molestation(later proven unfounded) till he committed suicide. In 2007 another of Denver’s finest was sexually abusing under-aged homeless girls in the back of his wife’s store. We won’t go into the Police Riots after the 1997 and 98 superbowl wins or the moronic over-reaction to the millennium new year.
Suffice it to say the department is, IMHO, the keystone cops of the Rocky Mountains.
Andy,
Child labor laws don’t generally apply to family businesses. Even the rules about operating dangerous equipment don’t apply.
However, I would fully expect that involving a child in a felony conspiracy would fit neatly within the definition of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and likely lots of other charges as well.
Soronel Haetir (2b4c2b) — 9/14/2009 @ 10:36 pmStan Switek@8 “how many liquor stores are being robbed for alcohol”. Let’s change the situation a little bit and say that there was a large enough tax on alcohol at liquor stores, where there’d be an underground market where it wouldn’t be taxed and the price would be significantly lower. In that case, how many liquor stores would be robbed for alcohol? The answer would be ‘every single one of them that doesn’t have a 24×7 armed guard’. In an actual ‘pot is legalized’ situation, as opposed to what we have in LA today, there would be no underground market to speak of, and armed robbery would be no greater than that of any other store, I’m certain.
Skip (9c227a) — 9/14/2009 @ 10:36 pmSoronel@10, yes, there are absolutely tons of charges that you could put on the father in this case. I would just object strenuously to murder being one of them. And honestly, regardless of whether or not pot should be legal, it isn’t. So the judgements of what is or isn’t reckless endangerment, or ‘contributing to the delinquency’, etc., apply. People who want the law changed should be willing to deal with it as it is, not as they wish it would be.
Skip (9c227a) — 9/14/2009 @ 10:45 pmLeviticus:
I’m not knowledgeable about Colorado law but a quick search suggests Colorado may recognize the felony murder rule in Section 18.3.102 of the Criminal Code.
I believe the felony murder rule holds responsible only those persons engaged in the commission of the underlying felony. If so, then the people who would be criminally liable are the 3 robbers, not the father who was engaged in self-defense. Granted, this father doesn’t have the cleanest hands but it’s still similar to this hypothetical of the felony-murder rule:
DRJ (a51a0e) — 9/14/2009 @ 10:55 pmAlso, even if the father is a drug dealer, apparently this jury wasn’t convinced he was selling when this occurred and there were guilty pleas by the 3 robbers to attempted robbery. That may be why the DA opted for child endangerment charges — because there wasn’t enough proof the father was engaged in a felony and because IMO the DA can’t ethically charge the father with a crime (selling) that is inconsistent with the plea bargains entered into with the 3 robbers (robbery and home invasion).
DRJ (a51a0e) — 9/14/2009 @ 11:05 pm1. The alleged male progenitor (he’s not a father if he’s using his daughter in an illegal business venture) should do hard time, and lots of it, if the peripheral information holds true.
2. The alleged male progenitor has a right to defend his own home against burglary. Whoever dies as a result of the burglary can be hanged around the burglars’ necks.
3. Even minimum-wage laws have no hold over a strictly-family business. Minimum-age laws (when not talking “adult”), minimum-wage laws hold no sway. I was a 13-year-old construction laborer for my male progenitor. I know what he was told concerning employing me before I started because I was there to hear it.
4. That Denver story is so messed up and self-contradictory, it’s hard to tell if anyone is telling the truth.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 9/14/2009 @ 11:19 pmDRJ,
What I’m asking is that, if distribution is a felony in Denver/Whatever County/Colorado, and the father is more or less continually committing the felony of distribution (or perhaps the felony of conspiracy to distribute, if such a thing exists), couldn’t it be reasoned that that felony led to the death of this girl (and was indeed taking place at the time of her death)? I mean, would the robbers have been there in the first place if the guy hadn’t been a drug dealer?
(I know that’s a slippery slope, something like “Would the robbers have been there in the first place if the guy hadn’t had such a nice TV?”… but the drug angle does change things a little bit.)
The hypothetical you gave was the interpretation of the felony murder rule that I was familiar with – that is, I didn’t know that it had been relaxed to exclude deaths not directly attributable to perpetrators of crimes.
What I’m saying is, if distribution is a felony, there’s more than one felony going on in this situation, and more than one felony murder angle… not to say that I necessarily think the father should be charged with felony murder (even if such a case could be legally made), only that it’s an interesting legal question.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 9/14/2009 @ 11:33 pmI see what you’re getting at, Leviticus. Let me try to spell it out the way I see it. And I never took a law class in my life, so take my view for what it’s worth.
Premise 1: There is a break-in occurring.
Premise 2: A young girl resident of the house has drugs in her pocket.
Premise 3: Those drugs came from the man she calls “daddy.”
Premise 4: That man produces and sells drugs for a living.
Since there is a break-in, it can be easily understood that the people breaking in aren’t there to make a purchase or sale. As such, the residents cannot be assumed to be making a sale or purchase -at that time-. If the residents are not in the process of doing business, regardless of the fact the residents are within the business address, all activities are separate from the business. Therefore, the ones breaking in are in the act of committing a felony and the residents are not.
Another example, just to provide a picture.
Premise 1: You are a bank robber who has robbed 30 banks.
Fact 1: You are now standing patiently in a bank.
Conclusion: You are not presently committing a bank robbery because you have not commenced the robbery.
Granted, cultivating illegal drugs for illegal sale is a crime. But living and breathing in your home cannot be considered an active commission of a crime in regards to defending yourself from a criminal action so far as I see it. But that does not absolve you of the peripheral law enforcement issues.
Again, I have not taken a single law course, so take my opinion for what it’s worth.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 9/15/2009 @ 12:01 amIf he was growing marijuana, does that make it any less self-defense? Or does growing weed excuse home invasion robbery at gunpoint? (I mean, other than home invasions and pet shootings by the police, which are apparently excused under the law.)
As for the felony murder rule: it doesn’t apply to just any old felony, but only to those underlying felonies enumerated in the felony murder statute of the jurisdiction in question. Usually those tend to be the felonies where there is an inherent risk of death or serious bodily harm. In California those enumerated felonies are robbery, rape, kidnapping, burglary, arson, train wrecking, mayhem, and carjacking.
Alex (6ac3b7) — 9/15/2009 @ 12:47 amWhoops, hit submit too soon. In this case, it’s the robbers only who could be charged under the felony murder statute for the death of the daughter — no matter who fired the shot that killed her.
Alex (6ac3b7) — 9/15/2009 @ 1:00 amFor clarification, I am not now, nor have I ever been, anti-law-enforcement. Any who are– well they’re dead from the neck up.
Secondly, I am not now, nor have I ever been, pro-legalized-illegal drugs. Any who are– well, see above.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 9/15/2009 @ 1:11 amHome invasion robberies, yikes.
What I find most disturbing about this type of crime is how some invaders pretend to be police conducting a ‘dynamic entry’ drug bust, to more easily subdue the victims.
What is an armed homeowner supposed to do in such a case? Meekly comply with any scumbag who screams “Police!” at them? Or in the crush of instant decision making open fire at anyone who breaks in, at the risk there might really be police present making a wrong address raid?
What would you do in such a case?
Brad (daf01c) — 9/15/2009 @ 1:52 amThat’s okay, Brad. There are enough state laws that say guns in the home need to be locked up, with trigger locks, and ammo locked up, apart from the guns, so that defending yourself from a home invasion by use of a loaded fire-arm is illegal just because you don’t have time to unlock your cabinet, unlock your gun, unlock your ammo, load your gun, and rush out to the invaders who already left with your big-screen.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 9/15/2009 @ 1:55 amHey, invaders, gimme a few minutes to undo all these locks and load my gun, and I’ll be right with you.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 9/15/2009 @ 1:58 amJohn,
I believe no State has a law such as you describe, and only very few localities do. Such as the law in Washington D.C. struck down by the Supreme Court last year in the D.C. v Heller case.
Brad (daf01c) — 9/15/2009 @ 2:02 amMy understanding may well be an exaggeration but it’s only an exaggeration due to my lack of understanding. 😉 (my sister is blonde, does that count?)
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 9/15/2009 @ 2:04 amJohn. Several years ago, a kid, or a couple of them, were killed by an intruder while the oldest, a teenager, was trying to unlock the gun cabinet. IIRC, it was in CA.
Richard Aubrey (55438c) — 9/15/2009 @ 3:55 amThere sure seem to be a couple more points worth mentioning.
First, legalizing whatever the “Dad” was growing or making would not have changed the basic nature of his business. That is, he would have been growing or making some other and still illegal product because its illegality is what fetches a premium price. He could not make any legal product for profit, as organized legit businesses would always under-price such a small and crude operation. In short, legalizing marijuana would have meant he’d be cooking meth, or something else, such that any discussion that suggests the situation would not have happened if marijuana were legalized seems mistaken to me.
Second, the first responders (including the first policeman) said the girl’s arms were across her chest and not in her pockets. One neighbor even testified that s/he had done CPR on the girl in a vain attempt to save her life. I’m not trained in CPR, but it sure seems unlikely to me that anyone getting CPR will still have a hand tucked in a pocket. Am I mistaken? Nonetheless, the Denver coroner testified in court that her hand was in her pocket and on a bag of marijuana, which just happened to bolster the prosecution. Could Durham’s Nifong have relatives in the DA office in Denver?
jim2 (6482d8) — 9/15/2009 @ 5:23 amThis case is not a good example to deduce a conclusion from.
1. basic facts are NOT presented.
A. Why wasn’t there a conclusive ballistics investigation and report determining the weapon that caused the girl’s death?
B. Nothing had been presented concerning who shot at whom and when.
C. I’ve heard rumors of the Denver police being corrupt and incompetant. Was Police Misconduct investigated here?
2. Why are home invasion robbers given such a pass in these scenarios? They should be killed with impunity in any state.
3. Why is defending yourself, family, and home such a sin in the eyes of the statists?
PCD (02f8c1) — 9/15/2009 @ 5:39 amA news note from Baltimore (radio report). A person confronted a burglar in his garage. The homeowner called the police. He had a samurai sword and when the burglar attacked him (rather than leaving or waiting for the police to arrive), the homeowner removed his hand and slashed him in the chest.
Hopkins student kills burglar with Samurai sword
The radio said “Leftists are calling for a ban on samurai swords”.
Sabba Hillel (153338) — 9/15/2009 @ 5:41 am#11, Skip…. Alcohol is already taxed more than marijuana yet there is no underground market. You fail to understand the drug culture. Your argument does not wash.
Stan Switek (d9d8ce) — 9/15/2009 @ 7:19 amNeither does yours, Stan – if you think that armed robbery of liquor stores is a rare occurrence, then I’ve got an awesome bridge to sell you in the Mojave Desert. And saying something like “you fail to understand the drug culture” sneers of condescension and betrays a lack of substance to your arguments. Let’s try a little exercise, shall we? Please tell me the annual number of incidents of drunk and/or impaired driving, assault with a deadly weapon or domestic violence that were committed by individuals who were high on pot, compared to those drunk out of their minds. How about that comparison? The court system has also realized that locking up drug offenders not only doesn’t work in discouraging further usage, it tends to make the offenders more likely to commit more additional criminal acts after they get out of prison.
Legalize marijuana, but make sure that employers can still test for it and fire those who toke.
OK, then let’s also require all employers to test for alcholic consumption and pain medication as well – then everyone can be fired at will for any type of substance abuse. Sound good? I’m not in favour of legalization, but decriminalization is one way to get us out of some of these Gordian Knots. Chicago’s basically been practicing this enforcement under the table by issuing people caught with small amounts of pot the equivalence of a traffic ticket. The police are in favour of such a policy, since it frees them up to do actual worthwhile actions, rather then spend endless amounts of time in court proceedings. The judges are also in favour of it, since it clogs up the courts with litigation that serves no worthwhile purpose at large.
Dmac (a93b13) — 9/15/2009 @ 7:54 amStan, I believe the booze isn’t stolen in large quantities is due more to several factors:
quasimodo (4af144) — 9/15/2009 @ 8:03 am1. weight to buzz ratio
2. glass breakage to buzz ratio
3. too many choices for an idiot with a thirst to make
dmac, he didn’t say ‘require’ pot testing. He said ‘permit it.’
Juan (bd4b30) — 9/15/2009 @ 8:31 amDmac at 31 – Are you trying to say that an employer can not terminate an employee who is under the influence of alcohol at work? Or one whose long term poor performance/attendance due to drinking interferes with work?
Have Blue (854a6e) — 9/15/2009 @ 8:44 amEven thieves and drug dealers are entitled not to be robbed by home invasion. If I break into a warehouse full of stolen goods, and steal them from the original thieves, I have still committed burglary. So, in this scenario, scumbag dad is legitimately resisting a burglary or robbery attempt.
However, if the facts were different, and dad invited the bad guys into his home to consummate a drug transaction, and it went bad because of some dispute over money or the amount or quality of the drugs, then I think you’d get a different outcome, and dad would be guilty of felony murder, because everything then would have stemmed from an illegal transaction to which he was a party.
But as I say, those aren’t the facts here.
PatHMV (c31294) — 9/15/2009 @ 9:08 am“Even thieves and drug dealers are entitled not to be robbed by home invasion”
Granted, it’s still a crime to steal from them, but it’s harder for them to prove self defense sometimes, particularly because they have to be credible to convince the jury… the burden of proof is on the defender.
Poor girl must have had a pretty awful life, running drugs out to complete slimeballs… none of whom ever thought to help her by anonymously contacting CPS. Their drug connection was more important to them than this girl’s welfare.
I hope they find a way to make this man serve time.
Juan (bd4b30) — 9/15/2009 @ 9:14 amAre you trying to say that an employer can not terminate an employee who is under the influence of alcohol at work?
Nope; what I’m saying is that there still exists a double – standard at most workplaces concerning drug testing. To pretend that somehow smoking a joint is a much more firable offense than the abuse of prescription drugs and/or alcohol is cognitive dissonance at it’s worst. However, I don’t believe many workplaces test for alcohol abuse, do they? It’s mostly an observable condition, and take it from my family, an alcoholic can hide it for years from his co – workers and superiors. My wife is tested regularly for drugs because she’s an flight attendant at an airline, yet she’s seen many co – workers zoned out on Vicodin or Percoset, but they don’t even get a slap on the wrist because their doctor keeps writing them prescriptions. The pilots once in awhile have a few belts before takeoff, but they’re not tested for alcohol, unless they’re observed behaving erratically before boarding.
Dmac (a93b13) — 9/15/2009 @ 9:22 amhe didn’t say ‘require’ pot testing. He said ‘permit it.’
I stand corrected – thank you for pointing that out.
Dmac (a93b13) — 9/15/2009 @ 9:23 amDmac, I didn’t see any indication of a double standard. You’re right that there shouldn’t be one. A company should be able to fire someone who smokes pot, and pot is indeed a terrible drug that causes lifelong damage. They should also be able to fire people who abuse other drugs.
While this isn’t part of your hypo, in today’s world, a pot smoker is also breaking the law. That, in and of itself, says something about the pot smoker that can’t be said about the person taking a prescription or drinking whiskey.
Pot is a hallucinogen that is linked to mental illness… it’s not just something that gives you a buzz and mellows you out. It has effects on the serious pot smoker that last. I don’t see that effect from people who drink on the weekend.
Pot smokers don’t care what the law says and should be fired instantly. A lot of people on pain killers did not mean to get there… their doctors just didn’t give them enough analysis and they were hooked and are not at fault. I would never fire someone addicted to a prescription without learning more about their situation. I would never allow a pot smoker to stay in my employ. There is no double standard there. Pot smokers are worse people.
Juan (bd4b30) — 9/15/2009 @ 9:29 amMany cases are underfunded – there are just soo few dollars to go around and prove this and that when there are unfortunately more pressing matters
The little girl was shot accidentally is diferent than two dead and one dying teenager that all we have is the word of a drug dealer that they pointed weapons at him
both are tough calls but all should be accessories to manslaughter in the childs death as a minimum and same for all of the involved including the shooter even if he was NOT dealing drugs he lived in shared tenament with those that were and is liable for using violence not self defense.
But details are sketchy
EricPWJohnson (785fbc) — 9/15/2009 @ 10:28 amI don’t see that effect from people who drink on the weekend.
You obviously have never heard of alcoholics who are notorious for only going on “weekend benders,” Juan. That is the most ridiculous thing you’ve said on this subject – yet.
Pot is a hallucinogen that is linked to mental illness
Vicodin, Percoset and Valium are also linked to mental illness, yes? Are you seriously going to argue the opposite here? Are you seriously saying that smoking weed is demonstrably worse than abusing powerful pain killers and booze? If so, let’s see the reearch on this blanket resolution.
A lot of people on pain killers did not mean to get there
Yes, but many do mean to “get there,” yet you excuse them as well. No, no double standard there, obviously.
Pot smokers are worse people.
Then I suggest that you get yourself pronto down to your local hospital that cares for individuals with cancer – please urge them to tell their patients suffering from extreme nausea and severe weight loss that they must condemn their patients from seeking relief through marijuana use – I urge you to do this ASAP, then report back to me with your findings on their reactions to your incredibly dogmatic and inane opinions on the matter.
[note: fished from spam filter — Stashiu]
Dmac (a93b13) — 9/15/2009 @ 12:06 pmEricPWJohnson… looking at the details of the San Marcos case, as best I can tell, the claim that the teenagers who were shot came from someone who went to the house WITH them, and who, by telling the police that, was implicating himself in an armed robbery. It’s not like the only information about the individuals who were shot came from the guy who did the shooting.
PatHMV (c31294) — 9/15/2009 @ 12:53 pmdmac,
I thought it was pretty obvious I was distinguishing between people who get hooked on pain killers after a prescription being distinct from people who set out to use pot illegally just to get high.
Actually, yeah, that’s obviously what I said. Why did you not see that?
Of course people who break the law to use any drugs, such as prescription pain killers, just to get high, are not part of that discussion. Nor are pot smokers who are prescribed pot. I made clear I was making my own discussion that was outside whatever hypo you’re making.
You have confused what others have said a couple of times, and it gets in the way of the discussion. If you want to judge me, that’s not my problem. But the distinction I made is fair. If your wife’s friends who struggle with pain killer addiction got to that point after some kind of injury and prescription, then they are good people who need help and indeed much better people than pot smoking teenagers. Your cancer victim brush is overbroad to the extreme.
This kind of paranoid angry confused argument style is one I’ve had to deal with a few times. When I have to deal with pot smokers. I don’t mean to throw that around, because I say stupid stuff on here all the time too. But if the shoe fits, consider how it affects your paranoia.
Juan (bd4b30) — 9/15/2009 @ 1:20 pmI also want to point out that your personal attacks make my point for me. I don’t have a double standard… I think people who break laws are worse employees and a liability that alcohol drinkers or mere addicts (who aren’t breaking laws, duh) are not.
Everyone that I work with, and I actually mean all of them, drank last weekend to the point of having at least a buzz. There has been no effect at work. I can tell a person has smoked pot much more easily than I can tell someone had alcohol a few days ago. Pot smokers may lack that ability because their brains are fried. You have to drink enough alcohol to put your life in jeopardy, and for quite a while, before the alcohol makes a permanent dent on your brain that affects your work. Pot is different because it is a hallucinogen and really screws you up in a fundamental way.
Juan (bd4b30) — 9/15/2009 @ 1:28 pmI don’t smoke pot, Juan – it didn’t work for me during my cancer treatments. But thanks for determining that fact without any evidence.
Dmac (a93b13) — 9/15/2009 @ 1:30 pmI don’t mean to throw that around,
But of course, then you immediately do it anyway:
But if the shoe fits, consider how it affects your paranoia.
I’d say that you have a bad case of projection here, but I don’t mean to throw that around. But if the shoe fits…
Dmac (a93b13) — 9/15/2009 @ 1:34 pmOkay, you two, let’s go back to laughing at the APORN saga. It just keeps getting better — like being high without the pharmaceuticals.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0d5512) — 9/15/2009 @ 1:49 pmFine by me – I hear that Beck’s going to air that duo’s penultimate vid on Acorn, something really heinous. Anyone care to guess? We’ve just seen one vid where the Acorn worker brags that she got off with murdering her husband. What could top that one?
Dmac (a93b13) — 9/15/2009 @ 2:02 pmFor some people, there is little to no difference between pharmaceuticals, pot, alcohol, and anything else that can give you a buzz.
JD (5375e6) — 9/15/2009 @ 2:16 pmDmac,
The ACORN story has become surreal. So much criminality that went unreported, because it was all done by a “poverty group,” which of course the MSM thinks can do no wrong.
Breitbart’s greatest achievement has been to show you don’t have to just complain about the MSM’s lack of curiosity about Obama’s scandal-plagued buddies, you can do your own investigative reporting without the “gatekeepers.”
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0d5512) — 9/15/2009 @ 2:19 pmAmen to that – whatever’s available is the mantra for most substance abusers. The only difference is in the delivery system.
Dmac (a93b13) — 9/15/2009 @ 2:20 pmBradley, I truly believe that we’ve finally crossed the Rubicon between the MSM and the internet for determining the macro news direction in the future. Too many obvious non – coverage by so many MSM outlets regarding Obama, Van Jones, the Tea Parties, and now this amazing piece of work. The broader public cannot help but finally notice what’s been going on at this point – when they finally learn about these scandals only after the people in question have been dismissed from their positions of power, something’s gotta give. And now we have another Dem. Rep. screaming “wacist” about any criticism of their leader – this is beyond parody.
Dmac (a93b13) — 9/15/2009 @ 2:27 pmBrother Bradley – Given what we have seen today, there is little to no chance of the MSM walking this back and spinning it in a way favorable to ACORN. Also, given what we have seen so far, the remaining tapes make what we have already seen seem tame.
JD (5e5cad) — 9/15/2009 @ 9:19 pmIs there any lesson to be learned here?
LegalTuber (910754) — 10/11/2009 @ 10:00 pm